CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 24747 of 1993 has challenged the appointment of respondents 2 to 5 as assistant office superintendents on the ground of several irregularities in the matter of selection. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 18402 of 1993 has challenged the above said selection on the ground that the university has not reserved 30% of the posts vacant for women as per the government order. ( 3 ) THE university by notification dated 31-3-1992 called for applications to fill up four posts of assistant office superintendents as per Annexure-a. As per the notification two posts were reserved for general merit, one post for group c and one post for group d. The petitioners in both these petitions, respondents 2 to 5 and others filed application for appointment to the said post. The board of appointment constituted by the university as per Section 50 of the Karnataka state universities Act, 1976 (for short, 'the act') prepared the list of selected candidates on the basis of merit and submitted the same to the syndicate to appoint first four candidates to the said posts and keep the 5th candidate in the waiting list. The syndicate accepted the recommendation and appointed the first four candidates who are impleaded as respondents 2 to 5 as assistant office superintendents by notification dated 23-4-1993. This selection has been questioned in these petitions. ( 4 ) SRI vasanth kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W. P. No. 24747 of 1993 submitted that the notification calling for applications as per Annexure-A itself is inconsistent with the statute insofar as it relates to the age limit prescribed for appointment and further submitted that the board of appointment, without the authority of law, relaxed the age and appointed respondents 2 to 5 who were overaged as on the date of notification. ( 5 ) IT is nextly contended that the board of appointment was not right in selecting the candidates from general merit in respect of the four posts even though two posts from out of four posts were reserved for groups-c and d. ( 6 ) SRI manikkappa patil, learned counsel for the petitioner in W. P. No. 18402 of 1993 submitted that the government has directed all the universities in the state to reserve 30% of the posts for women as per Annexures-e and f and the said notifications having been accepted by the university, the university committed an error in not reserving 30% of the vacant posts for women candidates. ( 7 ) IN reply to the said submissions, Sri N. B. bhat, learned counsel for the university and Sri Vigneshwara S. Shastry, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 submitted that there is no irregularity or illegality in the matter of selection of respondents 2 to 5 as assistant office superintendents further, it is submitted that, since the selection of the candidates is on the basis of assessment of merit, it is not a fit case for this court to interfere in the said selection. It is further submitted that since the ranking of the petitioner in W. P. No. 24747 of 1993 is comparatively very low, even if the selection is quashed the petitioner will have no chance of getting selected and therefore, it is not appropriate for this court to interfere with the selection of respondents 2 to 5. ( 8 ) IN order to examine the rival contentions, it is just and necessary to refer the statutes of the university and certain Provisions of the act. Statute 7 framed by the university reads as follows:"7 (I) every candidate for appointment to the university service by direct recruitment must have attained the age of eighteen years and must not have attained the age of thirty-three years in the case of persons belonging to other backward classes and thirty years in the case of any other person, on the last day fixed for receipt of applications. Thirty-five years in the case of a person belonging to any of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes. Xxx xxx xxx (III) the age restriction can be relaxed by the university in special cases for reasons to be recorded in writing". Thirty-five years in the case of a person belonging to any of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes. Xxx xxx xxx (III) the age restriction can be relaxed by the university in special cases for reasons to be recorded in writing". in the notifications calling for notifications for appointment at Annexure-a, the age limit prescribed for the candidates to apply for the appointment reads as follows:"every candidate for appointment to the above posts must have attained the age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of 38 years in the case of sc/st candidates, 35 years in the case of backward classes and 33 years in the case of others as on the last date fixed for the receipt of the applications". ( 9 ) THE age limit prescribed in the notification is contrary to the age limit prescribed as per statute 7 (i) of the statutes. It is not known how the university would fix the age limit for appointment in the notification contrary to the age limit specified in the statute. Statute 7 (iii) of the statutes provides that the age restriction can be relaxed by the university in special cases for reasons to be recorded in writing. ( 10 ) IN order to know whether the university has relaxed the age for the reasons to be recorded I called upon the Advocate for the university to produce the records. Pursuant to the said direction the learned counsel appearing for the university has produced the proceedings of the meeting of the board of appointments for selection of candidates to the post of assistant office superintendents. From the proceedings it is seen that the university has not relaxed the age limit, but the board of appointments had relaxed the age limit in respect of respondents 2 to 5 while selecting them for appointment. The board of appointment also had not recorded any reasons for relaxing the age for selection of respondents 2 to 5. ( 11 ) THE board of appointment was constituted under Section 50 of; the act for the purpose of selection for appointment of non-teaching and ministerial staff. The board of appointment is neither an university nor an authority of the university as provided under Section 20 of the act. ( 11 ) THE board of appointment was constituted under Section 50 of; the act for the purpose of selection for appointment of non-teaching and ministerial staff. The board of appointment is neither an university nor an authority of the university as provided under Section 20 of the act. Under the statute referred to above, power is conferred on the university to relax the age in special cases for the reasons to be recorded in writing. The learned counsel for the university has fairly conceded that the university has not relaxed the age limit as required under the statutes. In the absence of relaxation of age by the university the board of appointment has no authority or power whatsoever to relax the age of the candidates and select them for appointment. ( 12 ) ADMITTEDLY, respondents 2 to 5 who are selected under general merit were aged 39, 37, 38 and 41 years respectively as on the date of notification. The upper age for selection under the general merit as per the statute is 30 years. Therefore, respondents 2 to 5 who are selected for appointment, are overaged as per the statutes of the university. Under the proviso to statute 7 (i) of the statutes, if a person is holding substantive post in the university for a period not less than one year shall also be eligible for appointment if he is within 35 years under the general merit category. Even under this proviso, respondents 2 to 5 are not eligible for appointment since they are beyond the age of 35 years as on the date of notification. ( 13 ) THE contention of the petitioner in writ petition No. 18402 of 1993 is that the university has not followed the government notification regarding reservation for women deserves to be accepted because the government has directed the university to reserve 30% of the posts for women. The said government notification, I am told, has been accepted by the university. But the university has not reserved 30% of posts for women as seen from the notification calling for appointment. Therefore, even on this ground also the notification and the consequent selection is bad in law. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the selection of respondents 2 to 5 is not in accordance with law. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons stated above, writ petitions are allowed. Therefore, even on this ground also the notification and the consequent selection is bad in law. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the selection of respondents 2 to 5 is not in accordance with law. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons stated above, writ petitions are allowed. The impugned notification dated 23-4-1993 selecting respondents 2 to 5 as assistant office superintendents as per Annexure-E in W. P. No. 24747 of 1993 is quashed. ( 15 ) THE 1st respondent-university is directed to process all the applications filed pursuant to Annexure-A and select the eligible candidates in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above within three months from today. ( 16 ) TILL the selection process is completed as directed above, respondents 2 to 5 are permitted to hold the post which they are now holding. --- *** --- .